Re-uploaded (again, just in case), since TED's Chris Anderson censored Rupert Sheldrake, along with Graham Hancock, and removed this video and Hancock's from the TEDx YouTube channel. They dared question the Scientistic Orthodoxy, and for that they have been publicly castigated and defamed. Follow this link for TED's dubious statement on the matter (and the many comments appropriately critical of TED's rationale): http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for ... sheldrake/

There's 2 parts on why i'm posting this. The one part is regarding these changing constants. The other is regarding the change in speed of "time". If the constants of light, gravity, etc. are always fluctuating. What about time? Wouldn't time then also "go by" at different speeds depending where you are? Of course there's plenty of existing evidence for this that's been done with atomic clocks. But its interesting to discuss this in the light of EVERY known conventional scientific constant having flucutations.

infinity wrote:There's 2 parts on why i'm posting this. The one part is regarding these changing constants. The other is regarding the change in speed of "time". If the constants of light, gravity, etc. are always fluctuating. What about time? Wouldn't time then also "go by" at different speeds depending where you are? Of course there's plenty of existing evidence for this that's been done with atomic clocks. But its interesting to discuss this in the light of EVERY known conventional scientific constant having flucutations.

So, here's a challenge to you folks... knowing what you know about unity, 3D time, clock time, clock space and ratios of motion, how would this be interpreted in the context of the Reciprocal System?

After all, Larson's final comment on the Q&A video was that he concluded the Universe was "nothing but abstract change in three dimensions."

This thread reminded me of DW's Source Field Investigations into the matter. Also on theories regarding the construction of Coral Castle, where it is suggested the flow of time through the rock structure was altered to the effect of removing mass. DW goes on to talk about aggregating the particles in each atom over the Unit Speed Boundary to remove mass and illicit an anti gravitational effect.

Here in an earlier work he talks about how all space itself has a right handed bias. I would imagine that the observed phenomenon of time moving faster is because the left handed molecules are creating a different interference pattern in the counter rotating 3d space around them, while their energetic counterparts in 3d time appear to occupy a greater duration of clock space.?.

infinity wrote:There's 2 parts on why i'm posting this. The one part is regarding these changing constants. The other is regarding the change in speed of "time". If the constants of light, gravity, etc. are always fluctuating. What about time? Wouldn't time then also "go by" at different speeds depending where you are? Of course there's plenty of existing evidence for this that's been done with atomic clocks. But its interesting to discuss this in the light of EVERY known conventional scientific constant having flucutations.

So, here's a challenge to you folks... knowing what you know about unity, 3D time, clock time, clock space and ratios of motion, how would this be interpreted in the context of the Reciprocal System?

After all, Larson's final comment on the Q&A video was that he concluded the Universe was "nothing but abstract change in three dimensions."

Let me see if I got it right. The measurement are in flux because over time, which is a major component of the Universe, the ratios change, or are in motion, so that each measurement is new. This is a requirement of a growing Universe. We perceive the Universe at the level we are allowing to reach for and different people see it at different levels. Each according to their abilities. The Reciprocal Systems keep everything simple.

The purpose of a clock is to give our consciousness a reference in which to follow movement of space.

If we perceive that the clock has determined a set amount of time like a minute has past we can say that time has moved or changed. The clock is rotational because that is the convention. Actually it is more like a sine wave in my opinion. I see everything comes down to waves. The whole electromagnetic spectrum is considered a range of frequencies that are defined with waves. Therefore time is just a function of what we see.

Our consciousness interact with a clock on a cellular level.

If I understand the theory correct our basic make-up is like a star. But that is about it. With what I know as yet that is about it for now. I'm still deep into learning about Reciprocal System.

So, here's a challenge to you folks... knowing what you know about unity, 3D time, clock time, clock space and ratios of motion, how would this be interpreted in the context of the Reciprocal System?

After all, Larson's final comment on the Q&A video was that he concluded the Universe was "nothing but abstract change in three dimensions."

I admit I've read almost zero RS or RS2 material. My understanding is based on Daniel's released papers and discussions on this forum.

But one thing I understand is that you can't measure something unless you're aware what or where you're measuring it FROM. Any measurement is meaningless without a reference "point" that it is measured on or based on. If the measurements fluctuate (like the speed of light), we have to ask ourselves 2 questions before we can start "interpreting" the data (measurements). Of course we work on the premise that there were no errors in the use of measuring equipment.
1. Is our reference "point" (i.e. starting point of measurement) we're measuring from the same as when we had a different reading?(which can't be based on conventional scientific constants since they DO differ based on variables they deny or don't understand - founded by empirical evidence highlighted by Rupert Sheldrake)
2. Is it the same "thing" we are measuring as before?(This is why definitions are so important in science. You could be measuring different things that you think is the same, based on a faulty definition. E.g. the definition of the speed of light is faulty if it doesn't use an independent reference point to measure it. My understanding is that this used to be the case but is no longer due to changes in their definition.

1. Since different locations and different times seemed to influence the measurements, its safe to say that they were measuring from different reference points.

2. Although it SEEMS like they're measuring the same "thing" e.g. speed of a photon, they aren't measuring the same thing, because they assume with their calculations that space is constant and time is constant. Speed is a function of distance traveled over time. But if the 'distance' as a metric can be variable and 'time' as a metric can also be variable, its not possible to measure 'the same thing' twice ever. Their reference is faulty.

To explain my point, lets say space had a "density" (i.e. there can be more 'space-substance' in the same volume of cubic meter than in another cubic meter of volume somewhere else. This 'density' effect might be influenced by many things, like gravity) and time had an "intensity" (the more time-efficient something is, the less time is required for it to manifest motion. Just like space-efficient storage means you can store more of something in less space). If you move through varying densities of space, you have to take it into account when measuring 'speed' of movement, if you are using 'amount of space' as part of your definition of 'speed' (which conventional thinking DOES assume). If the 'volume' of one piece of space traveled was one cubic meter but its twice as 'dense' as another part of its travels, together those two cubic meters of space would equate to (1x density + 2x density = 3 'units' of space traversed across 2x cubic meters).

The same concept would apply to time-efficiency. If something needs less 'time' to traverse space it'll appear to move 'quicker'.

Therefore its easier to use a reference that accounts for the variables of space and time and create a new definition of 'speed' which is a more accurate depiction of movement. In investigating this, I believe that eventually we'll come to understand Larson's explanation of movement or "motion" - which is something entirely different than our understanding of speed. But if 'speed' is actually an 'illusion' of REAL motion, why would we want to keep using that concept? Its flawed and less accurate.

I think the purpose of a clock is to represent the other half of the physical Universe we cannot perceive. In 3D space, we cannot perceive 3D time directly but the effects fields have on space can be perceived and measured. To measure something, you need a reference datum, but what is that going to be when we don't have measurable access to the other half of our reality? Since speed in our reality is distance with respects to time, we have to "make up" what we will define as time. In 3D time, they don't have space so their measurements need to compensate for the space they do not have in their reality - clock space.

I think Albert Einstone mentioned something to the effect that when you are flirting, time speeds up. Someone waiting for a tedious lecture to end will feel that time has slowed down. Is it possible that the consciousness of the human species is speeding up and the slowing scientific constants only seem to be changing due to more and more people becoming individuated? In other words, are we catching up to unit speed?

Bruce mentioned on the RS2 forum something to the effect that what are perceived as "black holes" are FTL matter passing up matter in space, so it only seems that the matter is being sucked in to a "hole" but actually the FTL matter is simply outrunning the spatial matter.

"just down the road a little way, turn left, cross the drawbridge, and you will be my guest tonight."
-- directions to the grail castle